Gingrich in 2009: We need a must-carry law on health insurance

posted at 9:50 am on January 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Morgen and John at Verum Serum dug up this nugget, and not from 15 years ago when the Heritage Foundation had its brief and ill-advised fling with individual health-insurance mandates at the federal level. This comes from a May 2009 conference call hosted by Newt Gingrich on the subject of health-care reform as ObamaCare had just begun its tortured path through Congress. In this clip, Gingrich specifically calls for individual “must carry” mandates, and even notes that the insurance companies agreed that such a law would make “must issue” a better deal for them:

The most relevant part comes at the 28-second mark in this clip:

The real foundation, the most important part of this, is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectations of behavior. … We believe that there should be must-carry, that everybody should have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be “free riders” failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room with no means of payment. If you have must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue, and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry-picking and maneuvering. … This is the kind of general model we will be advocating.

Frankly, that sounds like what Mitt Romney argued in Massachusetts, and it’s almost exactly what Barack Obama argued when pushing ObamaCare. The only exception would have come for “absolute libertarians,” and in 2008, put the price of that bond at $100,000 – $150,000 — far out of the reach of most Americans. This makes sense, of course, because the wealthy are quite unlikely to be “free riders” anyway, but the mechanism that Gingrich backed even as ObamaCare was rolling out is essentially the same as Congress passed less than a year later, and it would have trapped the entire middle and working classes.

Gingrich has since said he was wrong about the individual mandate, and challenges Romney to do the same on the campaign trail — even though he told NBC in May of last year that he wouldn’t use the mandate against Romney because of his previous support. But his admissions of error tend to leave people with the impression that he repented of this a few years earlier, when Gingrich had backed forms of a mandate up until getting into the race (see above link). Morgen sums up:

Not only did Gingrich make the “conservative” argument for the mandate in dealing with the free rider problem, he also advanced a favorite argument of the left. Which is that the only way insurers could be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their health status (“must issue”), was to require everyone to carry insurance. This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.

Romney is arguably even more compromised on ObamaCare than Gingrich, but it’s a much closer call in my opinion than some seem to believe.

I think either man would act to rescind ObamaCare if elected; the pressure from Republicans would be too much to bear, and in any case, the past two election cycles have proven the mandates to be politically toxic. But if one is looking for daylight between the two on this topic, they’d be hard pressed to find it.

Comments

He is the best of the bunch, but it’s concerning whether he’d get the support needed or whether the tribal warriors would roll up their tents and go home. I can see the “establishment” knifing him in the back. Can also see the garment rendering “conservative” voters whining at the first heavy shot to go his way and hiding under their beds bemoaning electability.

I find it interesteing the Romney bashers have cited Romneycare as the #1 reason to vote against him because he wouldn’t be able to defend himself against the Obamacare defense; yet Newt has on more than one occasion supportered some version of the individual mandate.

Tater Salad on January 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

My impression is that Romneycare/Obamacare entails far more than the mandate. Kind of like comparing an ocean to a puddle.

The easy answer is that Mitt will never repeal Obamacare, because he won’t be elected. And he won’t be elected because he can’t answer the question, “Mr. Romney, if Romneycare was good for Massuchusetts, and Romneycare is essentially the same as Obamacare, why isn’t Obamacare good for the country?”

Mitt is very good at deceiving, he learned that from somewhere, very well schooled. Somewhere in his past, he was taught how to deceive, without really telling the truth, but not actually lying either. If he was vetted I would bet you would find where he obtained this ability to use words, than translate them to fit his need at the moment.

right2bright on January 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ah, that’s why you don’t like Romney. It has nothing to do with his politics.

Hardly, it just shows how you look at everything through a prism, that distorts what I posted…where did I mention Mormon?

Ah, that’s why you don’t like Romney. It has nothing to do with his politics.

Gelsomina on January 30, 2012 at 12:37 PM

You are not very bright, are you?
I have for years supported Mitt for VP or cabinet, because I don’t think he connects with the people. So I suppose supporting someone for the second highest office in the world, is being bigoted or narrow minded.
What I don’t like about Romney is what I have stated for years:
He is pro-choice, and in fact pro-abortion…against his Mormon faith, if he was a Mormon, he would be begging for forgiveness.
He has stated he is not a Republican, is not a conservative, and that he is an independent…that’s also on video, his words, in answer to some simple questions.
His politics are lousy, his loyalty to his faith is suspect, and his politics are weak…as a leader, I would rather have some one else…as a VP, because of the money and the leverage he brings, and he has a % of cultist like followers, a great VP candidate, or cabinet member.

Norm Coleman is not on his staff. Moreover, Romney does not “defend the basis of ObamaCare” which is a FEDERAL mandate.

Buy Danish on January 30, 2012 at 10:51 AM

You got me on the staff. He is just an advisor. Clearly a nobody. But I’ll disagree on the basis issue. The issue is a mandate because you breathe. Don’t really care if it is FEDERAL or state. They both make someone pay money because they breathe. So where is the evidence, others than words, that a strong effort to repeal Obamacare will happen. Can we point to an example where a strong fight was made against progressives who wanted to expand government and the candidate didn’t give in? (Even if they lost)

If you’ve examples, I love to know. It may mean I’ll choose to vote instead of sit it out. I’m done holding my nose and voting. My vote says I support someone. If I don’t, no vote.

Funny thing is, the only reason there is a mandate that American’s purchase a private product is because it was a concession to Established Republican philosophy developed to avoid govt run programs or single payer. Kind of ironic it’s now a hammer to bash him with.

Boomer_Sooner on January 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Exactly. The only reason some conservatives advocated some type of mandate was as an alternative to completely socialized medicine. It may have been well-meant, but it still amounted to compromise with socialism for little benefit.

Kind of like running a moderate Republican as an alternative to a radical left-winger. He’s still no conservative, but it gets justified because the alternative is radical Obama.

If we keep doing this, then we end up on a slow-train to Marxism rather than a bullet-train. The destination is still the same.

Gingrich was guilty of trying to compromise, and now he’ll have to explain himself. It’s still a bogus objection by Romney fans, who are already fine with the socialistic national mandate, and are only pointing out Gingrich’s statement to argue that he’s not pure on the issue, not that he actually wants a mandate.

Romney might be an acceptable candidate after a couple terms of a real conservative. To elect him now would have been like electing George H. W. Bush right after the Carter administration. The only reason that Bush 41 was a halfway-decent president is that Reagan had already made the course corrections from the Carter administration.

If we elect Romney in 2012, we won’t get a course correction. We’ll get slightly better management of what Obama put in place.

There is no reason to look at Romney’s career in politics and believe he will accomplish any conservative reforms. None.

George Soros is a successful businessman too. Anybody believe that makes him a conservative?

Newt Romney or Mitt Gingrich? All the same, folks. If they’re in favor of the same things, then I guess I gotta pick the guy who polls well against Obama, even after all of the class warfare that’s been leveled at him already. I can’t believe I’m going to have to support Mitt. Let’s just hope he gets better. Geez.

I have for years supported Mitt for VP or cabinet, because I don’t think he connects with the people. So I suppose supporting someone for the second highest office in the world, is being bigoted or narrow minded.

right2bright on January 30, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Or that is just an attempt to cover your religious bigotry.

It makes no sense to support him as VP, just a heart beat away from the Presidency, but then claim is not worthy of the higher office.

Palin resigned because she got in over her head. She wasn’t ready to govern the 46th ranked state in the union, which is basically a gas station without a food court or beer cooler.

Her betrayal of her supporters is now complete as she shills for Gingrich. Who happens to be the only politician in the race with a long, long, long history of adultery, corruption, lying, progressive ideas, an inability to get along with others, and an extremely erratic past…and present.

And all your silly name calling will never mitigate those facts.

csdeven on January 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

What facts? All I see is a bunch of raving from a long-standing Romney shill.

Gingrich was guilt in the past of adultery. The charges of corruption were long since dismissed, and you know that just as well as you know Palin’s record. You ignore the actual fact to substitute your own opinions.

You can’t make an argument for Romney as a conservative, so you attack everyone else.

Palin accomplished more in her 2 years and 9 months in office than Romney did in his four years. But we’re supposed to believe that Romney is brilliant and Palin is a dunce.

Gingrich accomplished more for conservatives than Romney for a simple reason: he actually tried. Romney was too busy telling everyone that he wasn’t conservative.

I have for years supported Mitt for VP or cabinet, because I don’t think he connects with the people. So I suppose supporting someone for the second highest office in the world, is being bigoted or narrow minded.

right2bright on January 30, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Or that is just an attempt to cover your religious bigotry.

It makes no sense to support him as VP, just a heart beat away from the Presidency, but then claim is not worthy of the higher office.

Gunlock Bill on January 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM

There are no valid reasons to reject Romney, so you must just be a bigot. Got it.

How about, I’d like to elect an actual conservative? All the shilling in the world doesn’t change the fact that Romney ran away from conservative values as governor, then embraced them in 2008, then backed away from them in 2012. Meanwhile, his dedicated shills pretend he’s always been a conservative, and Romneycare isn’t so bad, and Romney had no choice but to sign it, even though he still claims that he wanted to sign it and is proud of signing it, and anyone who doesn’t agree just hates Romney because he’s a Mormon.

The base knows everything about party purity but nothing about the electorate. I guarantee Tgat any purely acceptable conservative candidate cannot be elected. Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and many others need to start focussing on the unconverted instead of the incessant preaching to the choir. If they can’t do that then help us get 60 reliable votes in the Senate.

You either have the individual mandate, or you have insurance companies cherry picking healthy people and eliminating pre-existing conditions. Romney knows this, Newt knows this, Obama knows this, the Heritage Foundaton knows this, and the insurance comapnies know this. That’s why it is in the Mass. law and Obamacare. Everybody supported it at one time. It makes sense.

Gingrich has been lying about his long-time support of federal mandates. If, for conservative voters, Romney is off the table because of Romneycare (and his many “progressive” positions), then Gingrich should also be off the table due to his support of federal healthcare mandates, his lies about his position (and his many other “progressive” positions).

It is amazing that so many conservatives have been duped by Gingrich – how can any conservative support Gingrich? It is very perplexing.

the mechanism that Gingrich backed even as ObamaCare was rolling out is essentially the same as Congress passed less than a year later,

The problem with rising health care and insurance cost has been an issue for more than two decades. It began to really accelerate coming out of the recession of Bush 41 and when Clinton came into office he attempted to address it with HillaryCare. The voter’s push back on a government controlled health insurance program brought control of the House to the Republicans in 94 when voters rejected the mandate. Nothing was done on rising cost in the legislature during the remaining Clinton years and cost continued to rise. When Bush 43 campaigned, he included a prescription drug expansion of Medicare in his platform. It was popular because the brunt of the rising cost was hitting seniors hard and many who only had Medicare could not afford their prescription drugs. Medicare Part D was implemented under Bush 43 as promised. The Congress did not pay for it. But the program was designed as a market based program and we began to see the development of things like $4 generic drugs hitting the market. Bush 43 also had an extensive health care proposal that included things like decentralization of care thru more county based facilities for rural areas, moving non-critical care into communities similar to how police use store-fronts. The market began to react with the development of Urgent Care facilities in communities, non-urgent/routine care in drug-stores, in grocery stores, etc. Bush 43 proposed Health Savings Accounts, some of which did make it into legislation. He proposed allowing small business to join together with group policies to cut the cost of purchasing insurances, tort reform, buying across state lines, etc.

Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress were not focused on this issue and did not take the opportunity to push for the necessary legislation. The Democrats worked to deny Bush 43 the legacy of reform just as they worked to deny him the legacy of reform to social security. But Massachusetts did develop a State solution. That’s because they took the lead in addressing the issue. And people like me who went thru the history of attempts to address this problem favor State solutions that can come from federal legislation that breaks down the barriers, not dictates the programs.

Then came Obama and Pelosi who picked up the HillaryCare mantel and forced it down our throats. They did this to deny the Republicans the legacy because they knew it would come back to the table.

This issue didn’t just rise up. Bush tried to address it. The Congress failed him. It’s no wonder that when the Democrats got a second chance to do as they had attempted to do, they did it.

And the voters rose up again and turned them out of Congress.

So, it’s not surprising to me to find that GOP candidates at one time supported some kind of individual mandate in order to fund a health insurance program. But as you point out, Newt voiced his support for the Democrats type of proposal which was an individual mandate at the FEDERAL level.

Which is kind of ‘paradoxical’ for a historian who was Speaker of the House during the voter’s push back of HillaryCare.

I think either man would act to rescind ObamaCare if elected; the pressure from Republicans would be too much to bear, and in any case, the past two election cycles have proven the mandates to be politically toxic. But if one is looking for daylight between the two on this topic, they’d be hard pressed to find it.

I agree that either will be forced to rescind ObamaCare but I don’t agree there is not daylight between them on this topic. I commend Romney for standing for a State’s right to create their own solution and not backing down under such pressure. Imagine how much better the MA model would be if the legislation was enacted that was put on the table by Bush 43.

This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.

This was political strategy of Obama playing to the right because the Democrats remembered their history and were determined that this issue was going to be their legacy and done the way they wanted it done. I’m sure they felt very secure with Newt on their side.

Santorum is the only candidate who has been right on the two key issues regarding freedom for Americans:

* socialized, government-run healthcare: AGAINST IT
* global warming and trying to tax carbon: AGAINST IT.

The problem that Newt and Romney have is:
at various points in time they were FOR these two issues. Newt at times has seen the flashiness of “big ideas” and has been blinded to the constitutional issues involved and the concomitant loss of freedom when government gets bigger.

You either have the individual mandate, or you have insurance companies cherry picking healthy people and eliminating pre-existing conditions. Romney knows this, Newt knows this, Obama knows this, the Heritage Foundaton knows this, and the insurance comapnies know this. That’s why it is in the Mass. law and Obamacare. Everybody supported it at one time. It makes sense.

I’m a Mitt fan and live in mass. but yoou are wrong about the mandates are needed to guarantee coverage. In mass. before Romneycare we had a law called guarantee issue. all insurance companies could NOT deny coverage if someone was willing to pay the premiums.this is what made the cost so high.

the mandate of forcing everyone to buy insurarance in theory brings the cost down. healthier young people who don’t use it subsidizing older sicker people.
not taking a side. i get insurance from my employer in mass.and am not affected by Romneycare. at least not directly

Ed this is the same thing the Heritage Foundation supporter .It was a conservatives way of making the individual responsible for their on health care.Please don,t fall for this Romney propaganda.

logman1

Translation: Sure, Newt was for a federal mandate, but it’s ok because it’s Newt and Heritage…..you know, because liberal policies and tyranny are fine when pushed by “conservatives”. By the way, Newt and Heritage also supported Romneycare. Does that mean you’re ok with that too now?

Ah, that’s why you don’t like Romney. It has nothing to do with his politics.

Gelsomina on January 30, 2012 at 12:37 PM

There was a period of time that every criticism that came out of his mouth was religious bigotry. To his credit, he has not done that in several months. But after reading that, I wonder if he is harboring religious bigotry against him but is hiding it? well, if it is there, he wont be able to contain it and it will come spilling out all over the page.

Yeah well Newt said that was a mistake so what seems to be the problem? His global warming posturing with Nanzi? Well that was a mistake too. His support for ethanol subsidies? Mistake. Endorsing Rino Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, just a mistake. This fat little snot just wants to dismiss everything with an arrogant wave of his hand as a “mistake”. Newt is a mistake.

So, Romney didn’t make his money in the free market? Pray tell, how did he do it then? Crony capitalism? Yes, I understand that you have to use “market” to mean “stock market” in order to formulate a response, otherwise your asinine comment are exposed as the lunatic ravings of an idiot.
besser tot als rot on January 30, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Of course Romney made money in the free market! You’re the idiot who mentioned “markets” (yes, as in “stock markets”) not me. You and your pals are the “lunatics” who throw around the word “Socialist” to describe Mitt, not me.

It’s beyond tiresome to have to deal with commenters like you who move goal posts and/or put up straw man arguments. One more time: How can he be a “Socialist” if he ran Bain Capital?

a dem controlled judicial review board who had the power to accept or deny judicial nominations.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Sounds like this thing the Feds call the Senate. So we can expect 25% of his federal nominations to be Republicans too? Be still my heart.
besser tot als rot on January 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM

WRONG! It has nothing to do with the “Senate”. It’s the law of the state of Massachusetts which Romney had to follow. Why does it not surprise me you conflate state and federal jurisdictions?

For those who despise Romney because of Romneycare, a history lesson may very well be in order. Recall the good old days when conservative thought included PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Back in the early 90’s when Hillarycare was being pushed, the Heritage Foundation put forth the idea of a healthcare mandate. Instead Hillarycare would cover everyone no matter what yet a mandate would force everyone with the financial means to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY for themselves and at least purchase healthcare. This was seen to be very positive. In fact, when Romneycare was passed in MA – there was absolutley no grumblings from the right over the “mandate”. This is why Newt has a history of supporting a mandate. In fact, when Romney ran for president in 2008 – the MA HC mandate was NOT EVEN A ISSUE. Romney was endorsed by everyone in the conservative movement as the REAL CONSERVATIVE compared to McCain and his stance on amnesty. Even Limbaugh and conservative talkers were supporting Romney as well as Newt himself. Enter Obama and his push for Obamacare. At this point because of the shady way the dems pushed this thru, all parts were seen as being LEFT WING including the mandate. And here we are today – if you really think this thru a mandate is the very epitome of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Whether you think a FEDERAL MANDATE and a STATE MANDATE are the same or different, constitutional or not, the conversation and thought process on this changed soley because Obama and the dems included it in Obamacare. Recall, the left wanted a SINGLE PAYER approach at the start but seemed to settle for the idea of a mandate. Granted, many of the right just didn’t like Romneycare soley for on the basis of government had its hand on healthcare and at the time, nothing to do with the mandate. Newt claims to be a historian yet him and his supporters fail to consult history on this particular issue.

Yes, HillaryCare was universal health care program similar to the UK. ObamaCare is a health insurance program as a means to get to a universal care program.

The Democrats remembered the routing they got in 94 and realizing that the single payer wasn’t going to be accepted by the masses, fell back on the individual mandate of a health insurance program that was used in MA because they believed that would be accepted since it had not been an issue. Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts presented the MA model as one of two that were used to model ObamaCare.

The strategy under Bush 43 was to enact legislation that would help bring down the cost of insurance and care and that would open up the market for more people as opposed to a mandate. If that was successful, the number of uninsured would reduce and the cost of care and insurance would also reduce. Thus, the justification for a universal health care program would be reduced. That is why ObamaCare was shoved down our throats. This was the second opportunity, and very likely the last, for the Democrats to have it their way.

I’m a Mitt fan and live in mass. but yoou are wrong about the mandates are needed to guarantee coverage. In mass. before Romneycare we had a law called guarantee issue. all insurance companies could NOT deny coverage if someone was willing to pay the premiums.this is what made the cost so high.

the mandate of forcing everyone to buy insurarance in theory brings the cost down. healthier young people who don’t use it subsidizing older sicker people.
not taking a side. i get insurance from my employer in mass.and am not affected by Romneycare. at least not directly

gerrym51 on January 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM

OK….that may be true in Mass but it is not in other states. The bottom line is if you allow healthy people to not pay for insurance, then everyone else’s rates go up. Everyone will need healthcare at some point in their life so let’s just cover everybody somehow.

I am sypathetic to the argument that if someone does not want insurance, then they should not have to buy it. From a practical point of view, everybody needs insurance so I support the mandate. Just like we force people to buy car insurance. Obamacare needs to be changed, but full coverage for Americans is important to me.

OK….that may be true in Mass but it is not in other states. The bottom line is if you allow healthy people to not pay for insurance, then everyone else’s rates go up. Everyone will need healthcare at some point in their life so let’s just cover everybody somehow.

true, that is the philosophy behind mandates.

but the true conservatives are against this under any circumstances. Like Romney i feel that if an individual state wants to do it thats their choice-but it should not be mandated by the federal government

I no longer care who supported what or when. No matter who is president, if obamacare is upheld by the supremes I will not obey it. I will not be a slave to the feds or a state gov.. A healthcare mandate is slavery.

One of the few good things about the mandates is that it’s pointing out a very common practice in America. We benefit directly and indirectly from the best healthcare system in the world while gambling that we won’t have to pay directly…then more often than not forcing the entire cost on other people when we can’t.

If it wasn’t for the threat of government taking over healthcare, I’d be for the mandates, all the idiotic b!tching about “a tax on breathing” aside. I think it’s long past time to cut down on free riders, and not just by cutting welfare.